Key Facts
- •Appellant convicted of sexual assault of a child under 13 (counts 1 and 4) and rape of a child under 13 (count 5).
- •Jury unable to reach verdicts on counts 2 and 3.
- •Appellant appealed against conviction, arguing the judge erred in refusing to admit bad character evidence of complainant C1 under s.100(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
- •Bad character evidence consisted of a school record entry from May 2018 where C1 made statements about a camera and missing underwear, the truth of which was disputed.
- •The defence argued this evidence had substantial probative value regarding C1's credibility.
- •The judge ruled the evidence lacked substantial probative value and was insufficient to be admitted.
Legal Principles
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Anonymity of victims in sexual offence cases.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.100(1)(b): Admissibility of bad character evidence of a person other than the defendant. Evidence must have substantial probative value in relation to a matter in issue and of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole.
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Standard of review for a trial judge's decision on admissibility of bad character evidence: The Court of Appeal will not interfere unless the judge misdirected himself on legal principle or his judgment was plainly wrong.
R v Braithwaite [2010] EWCA Crim 1082; R v Hanson [2005] 1 WLR 3169
Brewster interpretation of s.100(1)(b): The test is not simply whether the evidence 'bears on' or 'affects' credibility, but whether it has 'substantial probative value'.
R v Brewster [2010] EWCA Crim 1194
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found the trial judge did not err in law. The judge correctly applied the 'substantial probative value' test under s.100(1)(b) and his conclusion that the evidence did not meet this threshold was not unreasonable. The other evidence against the appellant, including independent testimony from C2, was sufficient to support the convictions.